remove_operator_from_groupMUTATES Olark data: removes an operator from a group (team). Olark API: DELETE /groups/{group_id}/operators/{operator_id}. Reversible via add_operator_to_group. Does NOT delete the operator, only their group membership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | The group (team) id (path; required). | |
| operator_id | Yes | The operator id to remove from the group (path; required). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals exactly what is mutated: only group membership, not the operator. It also discloses the HTTP method, reversibility, and the fact that the operator record itself remains intact, which is valuable nuance for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences: mutation status, endpoint, reversibility, and the important membership-only caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value and the key behavioral warning is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple two-parameter destructive mutation. The schema documents parameters, the description documents behavior and side effects, and the annotations document destructiveness. No output schema exists, but for this DELETE-like operation the absence of return-value details is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have clear path/required descriptions. The description mirrors these in the endpoint template but does not add new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a precise verb and resource: removes an operator from a group/team, backed by the exact DELETE endpoint. Explicitly distinguishes this from deleting the operator and aligns with the sibling add_operator_to_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clear that this is the tool for removing group membership and that it is reversible via add_operator_to_group. The explicit 'Does NOT delete the operator, only their group membership' serves as an important exclusion, though it does not fully enumerate when sibling tools like update_operator would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each dedicated tool targets a distinct operator or group operation, so the core set is easy to separate. The only ambiguity is olark_request, a generic GET escape hatch that can overlap with list_operators/list_groups, but its purpose is clearly labeled as a power-user fallback.
Most tools follow a clear verb_object snake_case pattern such as create_operator, list_operators, add_operator_to_group, and remove_operator_from_group. olark_request breaks the pattern slightly by being noun-style rather than verb-first, but the rest of the naming is consistent.
Eight tools is a well-scoped count for an Olark operator and group management server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundant duplicates or excessive granularity.
Operator coverage includes create, get, list, and update, but there is no delete_operator, which is a notable lifecycle gap. Group management is also incomplete since it only lists groups and manages membership, with no way to create, update, or delete groups.